In consolidation proceedings where rights and titles are finally decided, impleading necessary and proper parties—especially in compliance with a higher court's direction to hear all affected parties—is permissible to ensure a just and effective adjudication.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. ( Oral)

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 24.04.2015, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar (hereinafter referred as Deputy Director of Consolidation) in Revision No.56 of 2013-2014, “Mahmood vs. Fazla and Another”, by means of which an amendment application has been allowed whereby certain paragraphs have been incorporated in the memo of revision and also the names of Jameel and Saleem sons of Rahamilahi was sought to be impleaded as respondent nos.3 and 4, whereas Jahangeer s/o late Shaukat was sought to be impleaded as respondent no.5 & name of Mansab s/o Jahoora was sought to be impleaded as respondent no.6 in the revision which was pending in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Assailing the said order dated 24.04.2015, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his main grievance is against the induction of new respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. He would submit that these proposed respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 were not parties in the litigation either at the stage of the Consolidation Officer or at the stage of appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, therefore, they could not have been impleaded at the revisional stage under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1953 .

Next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these people have not come up with any grievance that they have not been impleaded and as such why somebody else is impleading them in the case is not understandable.

The third ground being agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the amendment application it is not explained as to how the proposed respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are proper and necessary party.

The next submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no specific direction for impleading the proposed respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6.

The next contention is that primarily it is only an amendment application and by virtue of an amendment application impleadment of the new parties would not be per se permissible. He has also made the submission that if the chucks are not been affected how they can seek impleadment. Such an averment is absent in the amendment application, therefore, amendment application could not have been allowed by virtue of the impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has drawn the attention of the Court to an order dated 09.07.2013, passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation between the same parties which was a common order in Writ Petition No.877 (M/S) of 2001, “ Fazla S/o Mohd. Umar vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others ”, with Writ Petition No.4469 (M/S) of 2001, “ Mahmood S/o Ghulam Rasool vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others ”.

While taking the Court to the said judgment and order dated 09.07.2013, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has drawn the attention of the Court to certain relevant portions of the said judgment and order dated 09.07.2013.

Mr. Nikhil Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has drawn the attention of the Court to the said order dated 09.07.2013, which is hereunder:-

“Aggrieved by the order of SOC Mahmood and Asgar filed revisions 46 and 107 before the D.D.C. The learned D.D.C. heard both the revisions together on the ground that since the amended Talika would be one in both the revisions and partly allowed the revisions vide impugned order dated 10-9-1999. Hence these writ petitions.

I have heard Sri Lok Pal Singh Advocate petitioner Fazla and Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate on behalf of pe Mahmood and Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate on behalf of intervener Asgar and have gone through the impugned orders.”

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has also drawn the attention of the Court to the last two paragraphs of the said judgment and order dated 09.07.2013 which reads as